Sarita Gupta vs Ravi Gupta on 5 May, 2018
10. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the
respondent/husband has submitted that there is no
infirmity or illegality in the impugned order as the
appellant had not approached the ld. Trial court
with clean hands as she had concealed material
facts from the ld. Trial court. It was submitted that
the appellant has not suffered any kind of cruelty
at the hands of the respondent/husband but on the
contrary, it is the respondent/husband who has
been treated with cruelty by the appellant and her
brother. It was submitted that the respondent was
forced to leave his house in the month of January,
2016 and even the photography business being run
by the respondent, from the shop situated on the
ground floor, had to be closed down as the
appellant and her family members did not allow
the respondent to run his business from the said
shop. Therefore, the respondent has been rendered
jobless and he is not having any income. It was
further submitted that the appellant has forcefully
Page: 6/12
CA No.81/17
Sarita Gupta vs Ravi Gupta
trespassed into the property of the respondent and
due to the act of the appellant, it is the respondent
who is made to live elsewhere. Accordingly, a
prayer was made to dismiss the appeal.